[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 131 (Wednesday, September 16, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9422-S9423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   AFGHANISTAN AND THE NATO ALLIANCE

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, Senators Lieberman, McCain, and 
Graham took the floor a few minutes ago. I have some concerns about the 
direction we are heading in Afghanistan as well.
  Yesterday the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, 
came before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said that success 
in Afghanistan would probably require more forces and certainly more 
time. I think all of us who are aware of what is going on there--and 
certainly I was there last year myself; many of us have gone over there 
to see for ourselves what the conditions are--and I think clearly we 
can all agree we are going to have more time in Afghanistan.
  While the Chairman did not specifically ask for more troops, and had 
not had a request from GEN Stanley McChrystal, who is the senior 
American officer and NATO commander in Afghanistan, he did, however, 
indicate he ``believed--having heard General McChrystal's views--and 
having great confidence in his leadership,'' as we all do--``a properly 
resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, and, without 
question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan 
people and to the development of good governance.''
  There are currently approximately 64,000 American troops in 
Afghanistan. But it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot 
achieve our goals in Afghanistan unless we add additional troops and 
anticipate a protracted effort.
  To his credit, President Obama laid out a new strategy in March. It 
properly put primary emphasis on building the governance capacity of 
Afghanistan and building up Afghan security forces. He also said he 
would send--and has--21,000 additional U.S. troops. We know now that 
was probably not enough and more troops will be needed.
  Just this week, the President said we should ``not expect a sudden 
announcement of some huge change in strategy,'' and he further pledged 
that the issue was ``going to be amply debated, not just in Congress, 
but across the country.''
  I welcome that debate. We need to agree as a nation on a strategy for 
victory, on the resources necessary to complete the mission. We need to 
block attempts by the cut-and-run crowd to limit the deployments and 
operations of U.S. troops or to tie their hands as to what they can do 
while they are there. We do need more Afghan forces. It should also be 
abundantly clear that if our strategy is going to work, we must have 
another resource.
  I want to call attention to the role of NATO. With the Taliban 
resurgent and casualties rising to levels never seen before in 
Afghanistan, we must have more security forces in Afghanistan, and it 
is well past time for our NATO allies to step up and do their part.
  The security of the free world is at stake in Afghanistan. Sometimes 
there has been legitimate argument about whether there is a legitimate 
American interest in some of the places we have gone. It cannot be 
questioned that in Afghanistan our security interests are at stake. In 
fact, the credibility of the NATO alliance is at stake, and I think 
whether the NATO alliance proves it can be successful and relevant in 
today's world is at stake in Afghanistan.
  NATO countries need to realize how much it is in all of our interests 
to defeat the Taliban resurgence and prevent a new al-Qaida safe haven 
from developing there. We need to prevent ungoverned territory in 
Afghanistan from being used by terrorists with global reach, and the 
only way to ensure this is through a strong and stable Afghan 
Government. But they are not going to get there without the help of the 
NATO alliance. The horrors of September 11 were only a taste of what 
the terrorists, with global reach, might accomplish if they have 
uncontested territory from which to operate.
  Our NATO partners need to realize that the credibility and relevance 
of the alliance itself is now being tested in Afghanistan. NATO no 
longer faces a threat on the continent of Europe or even on the 
periphery of Europe. For NATO to be relevant, it must have a global 
expeditionary role in the defense of our common interests, particularly 
against the threat of global terrorism. If NATO cannot succeed in 
Afghanistan, where we all agree NATO must succeed, the alliance will be 
weakened to the point that will call into question: Will it succeed 
anywhere?
  Many NATO countries are present in Afghanistan, but among them only a 
few are bearing the brunt of combat operations: Great Britain, Canada, 
the Netherlands, Denmark, and, of course, the United States. But just 
this week, Canada announced its intention to pull out all forces by 
2011. Other NATO allies have limited operations of their troops through 
restrictions on their missions--restrictions that I think are a little 
embarrassing, frankly.
  For example, some nations that have signed up--part of NATO, willing 
to do their part in Afghanistan--refuse to conduct any operations at 
night. Others refuse to carry Afghan soldiers on their helicopters. 
Others are prohibited from participating in combat unless

[[Page S9423]]

they are fired on and protecting their own base. In other words, they 
are prohibited from coming to the aid of an ally under attack.
  Let's be frank. If a NATO member cannot handle the responsibilities 
of alliance membership, they should not enjoy the privileges and 
prestige of membership. Our NATO allies need to remember what was 
agreed to in Bonn in December of 2001. The alliance gave their solemn 
word to help Afghanistan overcome the ravages of terrorism and civil 
war. The credibility of our allies is at stake.
  The NATO alliance has a very simple mission. It is: If one is 
attacked, we are all attacked. America has come to the aid of European 
nations well into the last century--throughout the last century. 
America was attacked on 9/11, 2001, and we have not seen the response 
that would meet the test of the mission of NATO. We have not seen our 
allies on the field in Iraq, with notable exceptions. Great Britain has 
always been there. Others have been there part time. But America has 
carried the lion's share. They are carrying, by far, the lion's share 
in Iraq today.
  Afghanistan is the hotbed in that area, between Afghanistan and 
Pakistan, of al-Qaida, which was the attacker of our country on 9/11. 
NATO agreed in December of 2001 that they would be engaged in 
Afghanistan, and yet NATO has not fulfilled its responsibility, even 
though the lion's share of our troops--our troops who have done an 
outstanding job, our troops who are fatigued from overdeployment have 
done their jobs--have not had the help of NATO.
  NATO is supported by the taxpayers of America because we thought it 
would be an alliance that would come to our aid, as we have come to the 
aid of every member of NATO. The United States pays 24 percent of the 
operating costs of NATO.
  I am the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee of 
Appropriations, and I can tell you that the military enhancements and 
military construction for NATO are in the range of $230 million in this 
year's bill. It is usually in that range--sometimes a little more, 
sometimes a little less. But basically America is paying a quarter of a 
billion dollars every year for military construction and enhancements 
for NATO.
  There are not NATO bases in America. They are in other places. Yet we 
are having to now put more troops on the line because our NATO allies 
have restrictions, except for the ones I have named that are in full 
combat and full partners and doing their jobs, and we appreciate that 
so much.
  But I think the NATO alliance must step up to the plate. As we are 
debating more troops, I know we will do what is necessary because 
America always does what is necessary, and I think our NATO allies know 
that, but sometimes they just sit back and let us do it. They let our 
taxpayers pay the tab. They let our troops be the ones who lead in the 
field.
  We went to Bosnia. Bosnia was in their backyard, but they needed us 
to step in; also in Kosovo. We have been there for them to step in 
because when it is necessary America is there. But when we are debating 
the increase in troop strength in Afghanistan--which everyone who has 
been there knows we are going to need--let's not forget to bring in 
another source that would help America in this time of need, while we 
are continuing to keep our commitments in Iraq with very little help 
from the outside, while we still have troops in Bosnia, and while we 
have 64,000 troops, the lion's share, in Afghanistan.
  Now we are looking at sending more, and I think now is the time for 
us to put it on the table for our NATO allies, that they have a 
commitment, if the NATO alliance is relevant. ``If one is attacked, we 
are all attacked'' is a great, simple, clear mission. But it is not 
simply successful because we have the right mission. It takes every 
member doing its fair share. And, most certainly, at a time when 
America is doing so much more, this is the time for our allies to take 
the shackles off, to engage, to be in combat, to put our treasure on 
the line with their treasure and not just our treasure alone.
  I think it is time for us--and I call on the President--and fulfill 
the mission. Terrorism is the enemy of every NATO country. This is not 
an American fight. It is a global fight for freedom. If we lose in 
Afghanistan and give unfettered territory for operations of al-Qaida, 
every NATO country will be attacked. Don't they see it? Don't they have 
the commitment and the courage to stand up? Just because it is in 
another country and seems far away, can they be so naive?
  When we talk about more American troops, as the President has said we 
will, I ask the President to look for more troops from other sources as 
well and to ask our allies to step to the plate and be our partners as 
NATO envisioned.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Maryland.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cardin pertaining to the introduction of S. 1678 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________